You never answered my question. And if we can't tell if the team will be better or worse if he was replaced how can we say he didn't deserve the statistical value he ended up with?

And yes there are high volume guards who shoot efficiently... they just happen to be great players.

I also never said the stat, or any stats, always work. I said before, and I'll say again, they are a tool. They are not perfect. No one is saying they are. That doesn't mean they are wrong though either, shouldn't be used, or can't be applied to individuals.

Do I believe Iverson was the best player on his team? Yes. But he shot too much and if he would have adjusted his game (ie. passed the ball) he could have been a true great. Instead he was a ball hog and that lead to serious inefficiencies with his game. Did he deserve the MVP? No, not even close. Did the 76ers need Iverson? Yes. But do I think they would they have been better with a more efficient player, even if that meant less scoring from that position? Yes without a doubt.

Because we witnessed the season he had with 76ers and the situation you brought up is hypothetical?

There are very few, and the fact that there does not prove any point you've been trying to put out. Yes there are great shooting guards who shoot efficiently, the correlation between that and the 76ers becoming better with AI traded is inexistant. And if you say that the 76ers could have traded AI for a "great" and "efficient" shooting guard, wouldn't that make AI a great player too, considering a team were hypothetically willing to trade their great player for him?

Exactly, which is why I said that AI was a bad example which doesn't work in your favor. I never said that stats are irrelevant to the game and are wrong, just that they aren't exactly shown in their "brightest moment" when Allen Iverson is considered the 9th best player on his team when he was MVP. In fact I even said in my earlier post that I get what you mean, and agree to a certain extent, only this was a horrible example.

And this whole final paragraph you have written, does it have anything to do with your argument that Iverson being 9th on his team is justifiable and is a good example to how WS is a very effective tool to evaluate a player? No.

Just for argument sake, I will say this. Iverson might have been a ball-hog, but him taking those shots. That's what made them win games, many times he took bad shots, many times he made those bad shots. Many times, if he didn't take those shots, the 76ers would have lost. In comparison to all the times he was effective as a high-volume scorer, his "failures" and "inefficiencies" were pretty minimal.

As for your last sentence, well that's just obvious. That's like saying the Raptors would be a better team if Chris Paul replaced Jose, or Dwight replaced Bargnani. Actually, it's not even that far fetched. I actually disagree with the statement itself, with the roster the 76ers had, anything that wasn't a superstar probably would have meant that they would have been what Cleveland is today.

IDK, I'd personally choose Bargs and Amir. Davis is good but you can't replace the heart and effort of Amir.

Honestly the only lock for me would be Davis. It would be a "battle" between Amir and Bargnani depending if Bargnani continues playing this way. Obviously this is all in the hypothetical situation where Bargnani always played like he did today then I'd pick him over Amir. Davis has heart, effort AND talent

Not even close? Did we watch the same game? Bargnani played pretty good.

I personally feel that he needs to play like an All-Star to keep him over Amir or Davis, and to take the large risk that he'll regress after. I noticed and everything, but I think people are exaggerating because of how fleetingly rare this kind of effort is from him. It makes me think "trade him for a juicy draft pick" rather than keep him. Would I be okay with building with him? Sure. He put in the effort I wanted, but not the results. And I think that's the player we'll see this season, because he doesn't appear to have the stamina. /cynicism

It's a big IF but if he does play like this I would like him to stay on. I am cautiously optimistic that he has turned the tide on effort but it is one game. If Casey can keep him motivated to play with effort (my big knock against him) which translates into defense and rebounds then I think he has a solid future.

Because we witnessed the season he had with 76ers and the situation you brought up is hypothetical?

There are very few, and the fact that there does not prove any point you've been trying to put out. Yes there are great shooting guards who shoot efficiently, the correlation between that and the 76ers becoming better with AI traded is inexistant. And if you say that the 76ers could have traded AI for a "great" and "efficient" shooting guard, wouldn't that make AI a great player too, considering a team were hypothetically willing to trade their great player for him?

Exactly, which is why I said that AI was a bad example which doesn't work in your favor. I never said that stats are irrelevant to the game and are wrong, just that they aren't exactly shown in their "brightest moment" when Allen Iverson is considered the 9th best player on his team when he was MVP. In fact I even said in my earlier post that I get what you mean, and agree to a certain extent, only this was a horrible example.

And this whole final paragraph you have written, does it have anything to do with your argument that Iverson being 9th on his team is justifiable and is a good example to how WS is a very effective tool to evaluate a player? No.

Just for argument sake, I will say this. Iverson might have been a ball-hog, but him taking those shots. That's what made them win games, many times he took bad shots, many times he made those bad shots. Many times, if he didn't take those shots, the 76ers would have lost. In comparison to all the times he was effective as a high-volume scorer, his "failures" and "inefficiencies" were pretty minimal.

As for your last sentence, well that's just obvious. That's like saying the Raptors would be a better team if Chris Paul replaced Jose, or Dwight replaced Bargnani. Actually, it's not even that far fetched. I actually disagree with the statement itself, with the roster the 76ers had, anything that wasn't a superstar probably would have meant that they would have been what Cleveland is today.

So you are telling me that if someone else (or combination of other players) used the possessions Iverson did, its impossible that they made those shots would have been made or the team would have been as successful?

I disagree that his offense is a strength: 4 for 14 is much too similar to what he did all last year. I'd rather see him go 2 for 7 and share that ball around until he learns to become an efficient scorer.

You want a metric for Bargnani to reach? Sure. How about a wins produced ... I don't care if he gets there by becoming a more efficient shooter, by upping his rebounding or what ... I would like to see his defenders acknowledge his offensive weaknesses (inefficient shooting) as well as his well publicized defensive and rebounding weaknesses.
Deal?

Good job on the defensive and rebounding improvements ... and I see the inefficient (4-for-14) shooting is still there.

So you are telling me that if someone else (or combination of other players) used the possessions Iverson did, its impossible that they made those shots would have been made or the team would have been as successful?

No, I'm saying that if he didn't take those shots the 76ers wouldn't have had the successes they had. If you take Iverson out of that Philadelphia team, and you give his possessions to the other teammates I highly doubt they would have competed for anything. In hindsight he did make those shots, he did bring the 76ers very far and won many games. And nowhere did I say anything was "impossible", you're just bringing up hypothetical situations/questions which neither of us can answer with any hint of realism nor credibility, especially considering we already know the successul outcome of Iversons contribution to the 76ers that year.

And I love how you not only initiated another discussion on something which had nothing to do with the initial discussion for obvious reasons, but then proceeded to ignore everything I've rebutted.

If I was to take this statement literally. Its an incredible no. 4-14 on a regular basis is not acceptable or NBA worthy. Of course I don't think the question is actually intended to be that literal.

The defense was still not there, but he did actually go out of his way to rebound.

I agree with Garbagetime. 4-14 is not acceptable, heck, its not even peewee worthy. Eventhough he tried playing defense and tried to rebound, its still not there. He did actually go out of his way to rebound, but for some reason, the ball just magically landed on his hands, 9 times today. Thats what i saw. Its an abomination, a catastrophe. Bargnani is nowhere near NBA worthy, heck, he's not even community center rec. basketball worthy. Forget Casey saying "“Overall, I was pleased with his effort,” and “He got out and impacted the ball on his pick-and-roll coverages. He came back and got some in-traffic rebounds, which we’ve been on him about.” (Source). Its the first game and a pre-season game at that. He wont amount to anything. He's not worthy. He's trash. He's scum, a steaming pile of cow dung. Figuratively-speaking. - (Liar, Liar)

Some might talk about his 4-14 shooting night, but offense isn't his problem. That will come.

He started off last year exactly the same way. He shot poorly and I came to his defense saying that we know it will come.

As for whether I'd keep him, I don't know. He certainly worked harder and rebounded the ball but while the effort was there on defense, he's still not all that good at it. He had some good hedges on pick and rolls, but overall, I still see the same low defensive IQ.

Of course, based on today's game, the only player on the Raptors I keep is Davis. I think DeRozan's defense might have been worse than Bargnani's, Amir obviously still need to get back in shape. Calderon was pretty good at running the team, but shot poorly. And everyone else else played poorly, especially Bayless.

He started off last year exactly the same way. He shot poorly and I came to his defense saying that we know it will come.

As for whether I'd keep him, I don't know. He certainly worked harder and rebounded the ball but while the effort was there on defense, he's still not all that good at it. He had some good hedges on pick and rolls, but overall, I still see the same low defensive IQ.

Of course, based on today's game, the only player on the Raptors I keep is Davis. I think DeRozan's defense might have been worse than Bargnani's, Amir obviously still need to get back in shape. Calderon was pretty good at running the team, but shot poorly. And everyone else else played poorly, especially Bayless.

At least the effort is there. you know what they say, when you want something that bad, you have to work for it. who knows, might be a start for him.

I personally feel that he needs to play like an All-Star to keep him over Amir or Davis, and to take the large risk that he'll regress after. I noticed and everything, but I think people are exaggerating because of how fleetingly rare this kind of effort is from him. It makes me think "trade him for a juicy draft pick" rather than keep him. Would I be okay with building with him? Sure. He put in the effort I wanted, but not the results. And I think that's the player we'll see this season, because he doesn't appear to have the stamina. /cynicism

If the juicy draft pick is top ten in 2012 then I'd be fine with that but I think we're being unfair to the guy when we're saying the guy absolutely must be an all-star to keep him over Amir or Ed. Amir and Ed won't be close to all-star level anytime soon. Bargnani gets the points and if he brings the rebounds this season and moving forward he could very well make an all-star game. Not sure how likely that is but he passed the first test. He has a whole lot more of them.